Delhi High Court
Balbir Singh vs K.S.Mehra & Ors. on 25 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Cont. Cas. (C) No.315 of 2008
% 25.03.2010
BALBIR SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ali Naqvi, Advocate.
Versus
K.S. MEHRA & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Arora, Advocate.
Date of Reserve: 12th March, 2010
Date of Order: March 25, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, the petitioner has alleged deliberate violation of order dated 19th July,
2007 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No.219 of 1999. The operative part of the order reads
as under :-
"In the absence of any plausible explanation from the side of the
respondent for not completing the enquiry proceedings for a period of
about 20 years, this Court has no option but to quash the charge-sheet
and further proceedings which have taken place against the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner in the petition has also claimed for the
release of post retirement benefits to the petitioner with interest @
18% p.a. from the date when the same became due with special
costs/damages. Counsel for the respondent submits that the post
retirement benefits have already been allowed to him in terms of his
entitlement. In case, the post retiral benefits have not been paid to the
petitioner till date then the same shall be released in favour of the
petitioner within a period of two months from the date when the same
became due with upto date interest @ 12% p.a."
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been paid the arrears and other benefits
including post retiral benefits along with 12 per cent interest as directed by this court,
however, contention of the petitioner is that these arrears and other dues were paid in
piecemeal manner and they were not paid within two months' period and the interest was
calculated by the respondents @ 12 per cent per annum simple interest. He states that the
petitioner was entitled to compound interest and not simple interest. He relied upon K.L.
Kohli Vs. Shri Prakash; W.P. (C) No.5303 of 2008 decided on 11th November, 2008 whereby
this court noted as under :-
"While allowing the above claim of the petitioner, the Tribunal
awarded 12% interest. It was not made clear by the Tribunal whether
the interest was 12% compounded or 12% simple."
After noting of the position, the court noted as under in paragraph 9 :-
"In our view, the petitioner is entitled to 12% interest compounded
annually."
3. The petitioner also relied on H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries
Corporation Limited; (2003) 3 SCC 40 to press the point that in case of payment of gratuity
under sub-Section 3A of Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act, it was mandatory for the
employer to pay gratuity within time and to pay interest on delayed payment. The petitioner
submitted that he was entitled to interest on gratuity in terms of provisions of Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 and he was also entitled to further 12 per cent compound interest as
awarded by the court. He also submitted that though the petitioner was facing an inquiry but
the respondents had not followed the procedure of sealed cover, which was mandatory and to
press this point, he relied upon Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman; 1991 (3) SCR 790.
4. It is settled law that while dealing with an application for contempt, the court is only
concerned with the question whether the order has been complied with or not. It is not
permissible for the court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision or to vary the
earlier order or to issue additional directions neither the court can take a view different from
what had been taken in the decision (Ref: State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Rajinder Singh and Anr.;
2004 (7) Scale 114).
5. The order dated 19th July, 2007 has to be read as it could be read and understood by
an ordinary person. The respondents cannot be held guilty of contempt if the respondents
gave effect to the order as is understood from its plain reading. The order provided that the
respondents should pay 12 per cent interest to the petitioner over the unpaid dues. The order
did not provide that the respondents were to pay compound interest. The judgments cited by
the petitioner are not the judgments given in contempt proceedings. If the petitioner wanted
any clarification whether the interest payable was simple or compound, petitioner was at
liberty to approach the writ court that passed the order. The petitioner cannot take a plea that
the respondents were guilty of contempt because they did not give compound interest and
instead gave simple interest.
6. I also find no force in the contention that the respondents were guilty of contempt
because they did not follow sealed cover procedure. There were no directions given to the
respondents by above order to follow sealed cover procedure. A petition under contempt of
court does not lie because the respondents had violated statutory provisions. If the
respondents are to be held guilty of contempt for violating different statutes then there was no
necessity for the petitioner to approach writ court and obtain orders against the respondents.
A respondent can be held guilty of contempt only if he had deliberately not complied with a
direction given by the court. The respondents cannot be held guilty for contempt of court on
giving wider meaning and interpretation to the orders which are not reflected by plain reading
of the order.
7. I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
MARCH 25, 2010
'AA'
